Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP., 09–291.

Decision Date24 January 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–291.,09–291.
Citation562 U.S. 170,178 L.Ed.2d 694,131 S.Ct. 863
Parties Eric L. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Eric Schnapper, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.

Leondra R. Kruger for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting petitioner.

Leigh Gross Latherow, Ashland, KY, for respondent.

Justice Kagan recused.

Eric Schnapper, Counsel of Record, School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, David O'Brien Suetholz, Eminence, KY, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Nathaniel K. Adams, General Counsel, Ghent, KY, Leigh Gross Latherow, Counsel of Record, William H. Jones, Jr., Gregory L. Monge, Keri E. Lucas, VanAntwerp, Monge, Jones, Edwards & McCann, LLP, Ashland, KY, for Respondent.

Justice SCALIA, delivered the opinion of the Court.

Until 2003, both petitioner Eric Thompson and his fiance, Miriam Regalado, were employees of respondent North American Stainless (NAS). In February 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notified NAS that Regalado had filed a charge alleging sex discrimination. Three weeks later, NAS fired Thompson.

Thompson then filed a charge with the EEOC. After conciliation efforts proved unsuccessful, he sued NAS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., claiming that NAS had fired him in order to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge with the EEOC. The District Court granted summary judgment to NAS, concluding that Title VII "does not permit third party retaliation claims." 435 F.Supp.2d 633, 639 (E.D.Ky.2006). After a panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court, the Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and affirmed by a 10–to–6 vote. 567 F.3d 804 (2009). The court reasoned that because Thompson did not "engag[e] in any statutorily protected activity, either on his own behalf or on behalf of Miriam Regalado," he "is not included in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action." Id., at 807–808.

We granted certiorari. 561 U.S. 1041, 130 S.Ct. 3542, 177 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2010).

I

Title VII provides that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because he has made a charge" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). The statute permits "a person claiming to be aggrieved" to file a charge with the EEOC alleging that the employer committed an unlawful employment practice, and, if the EEOC declines to sue the employer, it permits a civil action to "be brought ... by the person claiming to be aggrieved ... by the alleged unlawful employment practice." § 2000e–5(b), (f)(1).

It is undisputed that Regalado's filing of a charge with the EEOC was protected conduct under Title VII. In the procedural posture of this case, we are also required to assume that NAS fired Thompson in order to retaliate against Regalado for filing a charge of discrimination. This case therefore presents two questions: First, did NAS's firing of Thompson constitute unlawful retaliation? And second, if it did, does Title VII grant Thompson a cause of action?

II

With regard to the first question, we have little difficulty concluding that if the facts alleged by Thompson are true, then NAS's firing of Thompson violated Title VII. In Burlington N. & S.F.R. Co. v. White,

548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006), we held that Title VII's antiretaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. We reached that conclusion by contrasting the text of Title VII's antiretaliation provision with its substantive antidiscrimination provision. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin " ‘with respect to ... compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,’ " and discriminatory practices that would " ‘deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.’ " Id ., at 62, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a) (emphasis deleted)). In contrast, Title VII's antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from " ‘discriminat[ing] against any of his employees' " for engaging in protected conduct, without specifying the employer acts that are prohibited. 548 U.S., at 62, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (quoting § 2000e–3(a) (emphasis deleted)). Based on this textual distinction and our understanding of the antiretaliation provision's purpose, we held that "the antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment." Id., at 64, 126 S.Ct. 2405. Rather, Title VII's antiretaliation provision prohibits any employer action that "well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." Id., at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiance would be fired. Indeed, NAS does not dispute that Thompson's firing meets the standard set forth in Burlington . Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. NAS raises the concern, however, that prohibiting reprisals against third parties will lead to difficult line-drawing problems concerning the types of relationships entitled to protection. Perhaps retaliating against an employee by firing his fiance would dissuade the employee from engaging in protected activity, but what about firing an employee's girlfriend, close friend, or trusted co-worker? Applying the Burlington standard to third-party reprisals, NAS argues, will place the employer at risk any time it fires any employee who happens to have a connection to a different employee who filed a charge with the EEOC.

Although we acknowledge the force of this point, we do not think it justifies a categorical rule that third-party reprisals do not violate Title VII. As explained above, we adopted a broad standard in Burlington because Title VII's antiretaliation provision is worded broadly. We think there is no textual basis for making an exception to it for third-party reprisals, and a preference for clear rules cannot justify departing from statutory text.

We must also decline to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize. As we explained in Burlington, 548 U.S., at 69, 126 S.Ct. 2405,"the significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances." Given the broad statutory text and the variety of workplace contexts in which retaliation may occur, Title VII's antiretaliation provision is simply not reducible to a comprehensive set of clear rules. We emphasize, however, that "the provision's standard for judging harm must be objective," so as to "avoi [d] the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiff's unusual subjective feelings." Id., at 68–69, 126 S.Ct. 2405.

III

The more difficult question in this case is whether Thompson may sue NAS for its alleged violation of Title VII. The statute provides that "a civil action may be brought ... by the person claiming to be aggrieved." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1). The Sixth Circuit concluded that this provision was merely a reiteration of the requirement that the plaintiff have Article III standing. 567 F.3d, at 808, n. 1. We do not understand how that can be. The provision unquestionably permits a person "claiming to be aggrieved" to bring "a civil action." It is arguable that the aggrievement referred to is nothing more than the minimal Article III standing, which consists of injury in fact caused by the defendant and remediable by the court. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). But Thompson's claim undoubtedly meets those requirements, so if that is indeed all that aggrievement consists of, he may sue.

We have suggested in dictum that the Title VII aggrievement requirement conferred a right to sue on all who satisfied Article III standing. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972), involved the "person aggrieved" provision of Title VIII (the Fair Housing Act) rather than Title VII. In deciding the case, however, we relied upon, and cited with approval, a Third Circuit opinion involving Title VII, which, we said, "concluded that the words used showed ‘a congressional intention to define standing as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.’ " Id., at 209, 93 S.Ct. 364 (quoting Hackett v. McGuire Bros., Inc., 445 F.2d 442, 446 (1971) ). We think that dictum regarding Title VII was too expansive. Indeed, the Trafficante opinion did not adhere to it in expressing its Title VIII holding that residents of an apartment complex could sue the owner for his racial discrimination against prospective tenants. The opinion said that the "person aggrieved" of Title VIII was coextensive with Article III "insofar as tenants of the same housing unit that is charged with discrimination are concerned ." 409 U.S., at 209, 93 S.Ct. 364 (emphasis added). Later opinions, we must acknowledge, reiterate that the term "aggrieved" in Title VIII reaches as far as Article III permits, see Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 165–166, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) ; Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 109, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979), though the holdings of those cases are compatible with the "zone of interests" limitation that we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
771 cases
  • P.P. v. Compton Unified Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • September 29, 2015
    ...with a Title VII violation more narrowly than Article III standing (id. at 24–25 (citing Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 176–78, 131 S.Ct. 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 694 (2011) )). Defendants argue that the Teacher Plaintiffs' interests are not related to the statutory prohibitions co......
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 2014
    ... ... of Corrections v. Thompson (1989) 490 U.S. 454, 460 [109 S.Ct. 1904]; see Swarthout v. Cooke, ... ...
  • Griffin v. Lewis, No. 2:11-cv-1358-JKS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • October 10, 2012
  • Godfrey v. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 30, 2021
    ...has made clear, retaliation claims are "not reducible to a comprehensive set of clear rules." Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, L.P. , 562 U.S. 170, 175, 131 S. Ct. 863, 868, 178 L.Ed.2d 694 (2011). As noted in Burlington Northern , "the standard [is phrased] in general terms because the signif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Says Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Provision Allows For Third-Party Retaliation Claims
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 14, 2012
    ...for third-party retaliation claims? Yes, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Thompson v. North American Steel, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011). In the wake of this decision, employers must not only be aware of the protected conduct of employees being considered for discipline......
  • A Close Friendship Is Not Enough To Maintain A "Third-Party" Retaliation Claim
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 23, 2023
    ...plaintiffs argued that they pled a claim for "associational" or "third-party" retaliation under Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 US 170, 173-174 (2011). The trial court relied on Thompson and denied the defendant's As a result of the defendant's appeal, the Michigan Court of Ap......
  • Supreme Court Says Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Provision Allows For Third-party Retaliation Claims
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 10, 2013
    ...for third-party retaliation claims? Yes, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Thompson v. North American Steel, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011). In the wake of this decision, employers must not only be aware of the protected conduct of employees being considered for discipline......
  • Increasing Levels Of Workplace Retaliation Reported In National Survey
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 17, 2012
    ...(SEC) or Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011) (whistleblower protection provided to third party considered to be within the "zone of interests" sought to be protected by Title VI......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 books & journal articles
  • Retaliation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • May 5, 2018
    ...party is protected from retaliatory actions by an employer as long as he or she falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII. 562 U.S. 170 (2011). A “person aggrieved” has standing to sue under Title VII, which means any “person … adversely affected or aggrieved … within the me......
  • The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's Anti-retaliation Provision in Kasten v. Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation: Putting Policy Over Plain Language?
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 64-2, January 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...overruled in part by Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011).8. See Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863, 868 (2011) (holding that third-party retaliation claims are actionable under Title VLTs anti-retahation provision); Crawford v. Metro. Gov'......
  • How Sexual Harassment Law Failed Its Feminist Roots
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXII-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...understood as necessary or conducive to survival in a hostile work-place situation.283 279. See Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 177–78 (2011) (adopting the “zone of interests” test for determining whether one is a “person aggrieved” and therefore able to sue for a vi......
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part V. Discrimination In Employment
    • July 27, 2016
    ...an individual because of his or her spouse’s opposition to discriminatory activities is unlawful. See Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP , 131 S.Ct. 863, 868 (2011); McKenzie v. Atl. Richfield Co., 906 F. Supp. 572, 575 (D. Colo. 1995). The courts are much more likely to protect employee oppo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • New York Register, Volume 38, Issue 10, March 9, 2016
    • United States
    • New York Register
    • Invalid date
    ...of his relationship with another person has standing as a “person aggrieved” under Title VII. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011), the plaintiff filed a retaliation alleging he was terminated because his fiancée, who worked for same employer, filed a sex discrim......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT